Is the situation for male "losers" worse today in terms of access to resources and relationships than it was ~100 years ago? Or is it better than ever? If so what changed?
Or have male losers historically been losers in any time period?
>Is the situation for male "losers" worse today in terms of access to resources and relationships than it was ~100 years ago? Or is it better than ever? If so what changed?
>Or have male losers historically been losers in any time period?
Given that this answer has nothing to do with the contents of history, and everything to do with your personal beliefs about what "better" and "worse" are, why don't you fuck off to a board which cares about your personal beliefs like >>>/r9k/
I didn't say what my beliefs about what is "better" or "worse", I just asked a question about historical opportunities and limitations for males considered to be "losers". Given the marriage rate was much higher in the past in terms of marriage it seems like even losers had a better chance of starting a family?
>Hell, the leader of the Taiping Rebellion was a a guy who failed a test that would have allowed him into esteemed society.
Hong Xiuquan was charismatic actually and he managed to gather a private army simply by talking to cunts.
Plenty of people failed the Chinese Bureaucratic Exams. And it was a major thing to fuck up in said exams as clans provided money & resources for your schooling and tutors for that exam.
That said, other people who failed the exams entered the government in other ways. Via familial contacts, military service, or if you're fuck desperate enough: eunuchdom.
The Sexual Revolution and The Mordern obsession with Rugged Individualism created the whole "Loser" men class that we see today
In non-Western or Pre1960's west Societies Passive Males could get women more easily than they do in the mordern west but at the same time they had to contribute to society such as fighting in wars and being a family person and getting money to support wife and kids and even their parents when they get old
The situation for males in general is worse today.
Women and girls are being doted upon from very early in their life.
But this trend isn't new, it has just taken a new form in the 21st century. Boys and men have always been disposable and considered the less valuable sex.
What accounted for the high rates of marriage among men and women of all classes historically and what accounts for the decline in marriage rates since about the 1960s? Was it easier to start a family 150 years ago than it is today and why is that the case?
Prior to the late 90's or early 2000's individuals of comparable attractiveness or personality characteristics would mate with each other. However the influence of feminism and progressive as well as sex positivity and free love has essentially created a culture where the majority or a major component of western women ride the cock carousel for their 20's and then try to find a mate in their 30's. Omega male are ignored for their autism, Betas are only wanted after the women get their fill of alpha cocks in their 20's.
I'm not an autistic r9k virgin. I have a girlfriend and have sex daily.
>No jobs, no family, no prospects
This is so painfully resonant
I'm already consigned to the fate of dying single and childless and maybe working the odd minimum wage job here and there.
>Ranke. "wie es eigentlich gewesen"
Clearly a retarded sentiment. Every single historian has an agenda and bias, whether he likes it or not.
He can feign being objective if he likes, but it will only be feigning.
Go eat from the sewer with Foucault and Derrida you post-structuralist scum.
Was that so fucking hard?
You're wrong about high rates of marriage amongst all classes. The lumpenproletariat and proletariat had low initial rates of marriage because the degradation of prior classes to proletariat status shattered the necessity and possibility of a patriarchal household (Engels, 1844). The family had to be inflicted upon proletarians—part of the reason for kicking children and women out of the factories over time. This was due to an awareness on the part of capitalists that the quality of labour being supplied was inferior and holding back production, thus health and education and the family.
It was "easier" to start a family 150 years ago to the extent that coupling and producing children was economically essential for the survival of the farmer, peasant or proletarian household.
The bourgeois production of children doesn't seem to have been economically necessary but rather "culturally" necessary.
With the increasing necessity for working class households to have two incomes, starting in the 1920s, and capitalism's hunger for productive labour in the mid century, the nature of the proletarian household started swinging back towards double-income equalitarianism of a sort (ala Engels). Not surprisingly many workers felt that equal female wages would be beneficial in the industries where "skill" was the determinate of income, not brawn. Brawn industries declined over time anyway.
The push for equal wages was used by capital in the last third of the 20th century to reducing the working class household wage by increasing hours and stabilising the value return to the household: the inflection point is in the early 1970s when returns to labour stagnate against GDP growth, and returns to capital increase dramatically.
Up to 1990 the ideological results of this new equalitarianism weren't explored culturally at any depth.
>Go eat from the sewer with Foucault and Derrida you post-structuralist scum.
Woah, anon. You seem to be making value judgements about an action in the past here.
Surely, you wouldn't use modern standards to judge a post made 11 minutes ago.
The mass culture of the 1970s and 1980s having been just as sexist as the mass culture of the 1950s and 1960s. One thing which didn't happen is that the radically egalitarian culture of the communist and fellow traveller women who fought the equal wage disputes DID NOT translate into egalitarian proletarian households. Rather the mechanisation of the household under consumer goods transformed the structure of household labour, making children economically "redundant."
I'd say that the loss of child incomes and housework have been the greatest factor in stopping proletarian household formation as the economic necessity of householding has gone. When you combine this with the increasing financial independence of women, the ability to act as a full "bourgeois" member of society, there is no incentive to proletarian coupling other than romance-love or sex-love.
Of course these features have been culturally worked out AFTER 1990, so I will not comment on them. Prior to 1990, in the 1970s and 1980s proletarian coupling was still based on the assumption that you needed to form an economic household, admittedly with reduced domestic violence and rape in marriage as women could leave with far less cost than leaving in the 1930s.
Try some Engels (Family, Private Property and the State), then Kollantai's Red Love.
Romance is a delusion.
>What was so wrong with Foucault?
The poster was attempting to produce a meta-critique by reference to Foucault's understanding of power in social relations, a very post-structuralist position.
Thankfully History as a discipline largely rejected structuralism, and almost utterly rejected post-structuralism.
>The poster was attempting to produce a meta-critique by reference to Foucault's understanding of power in social relations, a very post-structuralist position.
This is a value statement about the past.
these beta men seek validation of their existence as a response of their action, from what they conceive as the reality, validation which is the most intense through taking women, after women have accepted them to be satisfied by them, and nowadays making women explicitly wet. these men are devoted to women.
of course, most women snub most men, since women live for pleasures, being hedonistic-histrionics-egotistic but not narcissistic, which excludes, most of the time, what they consider poor or ugly men since those will never give as much pleasure to them as other men.
Only the woman is able to have pleasure for pleasure itself, and she knows this. sex is what always pleases her, among other things, and the male devotees attempt to give her orgasms. impotent men attempt to give her comfort.
higher men are narcissistic --- they do not seek validation from somebody else, even less from a woman --- without being egotistic, but the woman takes this narcissism as her egotism, which thus draws her to these men; for each woman knows that her best lovers are not the puny devoted men [=robots and chads], but precisely are her fantasy of men like her, but not like her either !, which means just as egotistic as her, without being narcissistic.
the problem of the woman is that men cannot be ''egotistic without being narcissistic'' (only the woman is this). men cannot be histrionics-egotistic in fact.
the problem of women is that narcissistic men are not egotistic so that they take the woman for what she is, to wit, pure (external) entertainment.
the problem of the woman is that most men are devotees and are not egotistic. those men do not seek validation from women in general; they seek validation from higher people, which they know women are above them since after all, they feel alive when they eat pussy. but those men know equally that a few men are even higher than women so that the lesser men pay respect and follow those higher men, if they meet them.
the woman knows that most men are not able to satisfy her on all accounts, so she has been hyping the conjugal life in an attempt to make most betas stop being depressed in only providing women with a house and an interest in what their she says at diner, before she goes out cucking him.
chads and robots have accepted now to be cuckolds and they even take pride in this.
This article really is like reading a typical feminist trope, which is interesting considering what can of magazine it is.
Even when someone is trying to write an article ostensibly sympathetic to men's plight, it comes off as being simply a condescending piece of platitude essentially telling men to "man up" once again.
If by left wing we mean generally against hierarchies and differences, the sexual revolution was decidedly right wing, as in it only made differences on the sexual market greater, thus creating a stronger hierarchy.
The sexual revolution was only to give already privileged women in America more power and privilege.
It had nothing to do with actually freeing women from sexual mores at all, because people were already fucking whoever they wanted anyway.
People who think the 40's and 50's were some kind of utopia for nuclear families are dead wrong. It just looked that way on the surface, i.e keeping up appearances while doing your thing any way.
School environments are such a fucking joke. I don't know why humanity isn't rethinking this mess.
Maybe I don't understand the history of academia, and why things are the way they are.
Any successful engineers or doctors or whatever the fuck that have been through the autistic process of consuming and memorizing information like this that could maybe share their opinion on this?
t. drop out
And do you think it's necessary? Surely there's better, hands on approaches to learning?
Why don't students get embedded in the whichever industry and experience why things work the way they work first hand? Why don't they urge students to pursue their own interests and study on their own accord? Why the need to grade everyone and get them through this shady process?
Not to mention you've already been through a fucking sea of shit going to grade schools and high schools. All the while you could be spending time pursuing your actual interests and developing them.
Because I'm interested in writing, literature, history and Ancient Greece.
While all of these things are possible to learn without going to university, being around people with similar interests and also getting some kind of recognition that you are good at it, is why I bothered.
Being an autodidact is harder than you think. Nobody is going to respect your work if you don't have credentials.
This is a matter of right and wrong. I'm asking YOU personally if you think this is how it should be.
>Nobody is going to respect your work if you don't have credentials.
Will you do the same?
>Why don't students get embedded in the whichever industry and experience why things work the way they work first hand?
That's trade school for you. We should realize that not everything should be granted university degree. Ofcourse we need appraise them also.
>Why don't they urge students to pursue their own interests and study on their own accord?
If they don't waste their time partying and getting drunk, university give you acces to arcane knowledge that you could study by yourselves.
>Why the need to grade everyone and get them through this shady process?
The autist always have the urge to standardize everything.
>university give you acces to arcane knowledge that you could study by yourselves.
Never went to one, so I don't know the structure. But isn't there classes where a teacher is yapping off useless information year in year out while you have a raging erection and the urge to do push ups?
Like I said I don't know much about academia. I'm more offended how I was treated with education earlier. Starting with early childhood and into my adolescence. Maybe even I was cut out of my some interests I may want to pursue because the system was so shitty. For example I can't stomach math at all now.
>But isn't there classes where a teacher is yapping off useless information year in year out
The information should not be useless, if so the curriculum should be trashed. Or you're on useless major anyway.
>while you have a raging erection and the urge to do push ups?
Maybe abstract education is not your thing.
>A lot of smart people with smart opinions.
Not at all. It got this way through the German and French development of disciplinarity in the 19th century which resulted in concepts of empirical test required for scholarly knowledge (based of the Scottish and English enlightenment).
Your point? Yeah their opinions of how things should work (and thus did) are a matter of history. But they're not some universal truths that are not liable to change. Today.
That's what this conversation is about.
No, your conversation is disgusting post-structuralist question begging that has never broken a scab's face with a brick in its life. You're not even aware that the humanists won the debate with the structuralists through praxis.
You are a tankie.
You're using such loaded terms that go over my head.
I suppose I'll admit ignorance. Or maybe it's your fault for not getting your point across in simpler ways.
Either way this conversation isn't working.
men still think that women love to be housewives, even after each girl tries to emancipate themselves as soon as she reaches 18 years of age.
men do think that women desire a real relationship, before they reach 30 years of age, and in fact, even after this age.
men slowly understands that women want entertainment and most men do not live for anything than pleasing women, to the point of men taking pride in this.
women now understand that men understand that men do not really like to be played, so women now try to sell the ''husband life'' as a progressive life, emancipating women [with the goal for women to be fucked by their lovers on the side, and the husband accepting this, being happy about this]
most men buy this, since, after all, most men are spineless and will do what women will tell them to do; this is why you see most men being pleased to change diaper.
men refuse to understand that women are better than them, so that men call women ''whores, sluts'' and men refuse to understand that there is nothing wrong with women being what they are.
men choose to cling to their fantasy where their existence is acknowledged, by women mostly, since they know that an acknowledgement from other weak men is worthless and acknowledgement from better men than them is rare, in order to avoid an angst which is well depicted in the novel the stranger.
Communism isn't supposed to be understood, it's supposed to be preached until the opponent is worn down from the sheer obscurantism and denial of reality.
I mean Christ, he's advocating an ideology that literally believes every single political view, position, or idea that isn't his perfect snowflake interpretation of "Real [x]" is literally a smokescreen created by immortal telepathic lizards who created language and culture to hide the workers' natural telepathy and global hive minded nature.
>never broken a scab's face with a brick
Careful with that edge, Eugene
>men refuse to understand that women are better than them
AHAHAHAHAH only a woman would think this.
It's true males have an innate biological vulnerability to women--but aside from that, males are superior to women in every way.
Women have no sensitivity for excellence and so just ignore it.
Everything "human" has pretty much been exclusively discovered and accomplished by males... and not because women are oppressed, it's because women are subhuman manipulators.
>it's supposed to be preached until the opponent is worn down from the sheer obscurantism and denial of reality
If you realize it, why are you wasting time responding to him?
Just reducere ad absurdum and end the discussion with him refusing to answer a simple question.
Holy shit, you've been brainwashed! What have women accomplished... at all? We'd still be jungle apes if women were in charge.
Males discovered and invented almost quite literally everything.
Female rationality and objective interest is pathetically weak--but they do have insanity and hysteria, which are Super Effective against rationality.
Males direct their rationality against nature and mold it.
Females direct their hysteria and insanity against males and mold them.
The mistake males make is trying to fight women with reason.
men still think that women love to be housewives, even after each girl tries to emancipate themselves as soon as she reaches 18 years of age.
Researches shown that Housewives are happier than Working women
Yes. In the past loser men would get a women because a women would always need a provider. He probably would have been cucked by her but he also got a source of guaranteed pussy.
Today women no longer need a protector because the government will take the money from the loser men and redistribute it to the women we are meant to be there.
Fuck this gay earth. I can't wait for society to collapse.
>Holy shit, you've been brainwashed! What have women accomplished... at all? We'd still be jungle apes if women were in charge.
>Males discovered and invented almost quite literally everything.
>Female rationality and objective interest is pathetically weak--but they do have insanity and hysteria, which are Super Effective against rationality.
>Males direct their rationality against nature and mold it.
>Females direct their hysteria and insanity against males and mold them.
>The mistake males make is trying to fight women with reason.
The mistake males maie is trying to fight with women
they should dominate them with reason
>men refuse to understand that women are better than them, so that men call women ''whores, sluts''
>bullies are just jealous
this is a meme
I don't think you care about the truth but the desire to gain social dominance is a human instinct, something you see in many species, even chickens, hence the term "pecking order".
This post was quite obviously made by a roastie.
I would like to direct your attention to the roastie's neglecting to interpret or refute the offered points.
Rather, the roastie, sensing that she is in the wrong and being dragged into a domain of weakness--philosophical argumentation--
IMMEDIATELY shunts to emasculation and pathologizing.
It doesn't matter whether we are correct (we are), what matters is that we are bitter virgins.
This is the Roastie In Action.
>Everything "human" has pretty much been exclusively discovered and accomplished by males... and not because women are oppressed, it's because women are subhuman manipulators
You'd think women would have manipulated men into letting them take credit. Dropping the fucking ball there, women. Get on that shit.
Probably. Many factors coming into play, one of them being 25% of men fucking 90% of women. Believe me, I got /fit/!
Besides that, there is strong statistical evidence that men are discriminated against in academics compared to girls. At least they lost out in that department big time.
Migrants as a disadvantaged group still have better degrees if they are female, than native males. Male Migrants are beyond good and evil when it comes to this factor.
So even though this is bait I am sure I am not telling anything new by concluding that men are over represented in the upper and lower 10%
Going further than that, there are actually 3 big tests that one should take in HS in order to help their future. There's the SAT and the ACT for college, which are seen as a general gauge for how you'll perform in college. Then there's the ASVAB, which determines how many opportunities are available to you if you decide to join the military.
>admittedly with reduced domestic violence and rape in marriage as women could leave with far less cost than leaving in the 1930s
Maybe this is a meme and self-fulfilling prophecy. Solely in the west have entire generations of women been told marriage is an oppressive institution and solely in the west has there been a massive increase in divorce. This disproves your theory.
In the past most marriages involved no domestic abuse and lasted until death did them apart. In a world where security was more up to the individual and men often formed gang-like social structures in their local communities, marriage could actually be very liberating for women, her husband would be obliged to defend her if for example someone attempted to defraud her, thereby allowing her to engage in business, self-employment and other activities.
>since now the diploma has even greater value
I would disagree, my boy. The attendance of university by a greater percentage of the population has only devalued the diploma. And we see this with the rise of STEM being the only valid career path, and college professors being devalued to the point where they hired as part time to deny them their tenure.
There has been an oversaturation of people getting diplomas that don't need diplomas, because the high schools in the US tell them that the only way to survive as an adult is to get a diploma. This is because the education industry makes a shitload of money off of that.
And on top of all of that, generally speaking, the SAT is verbal-based, ACT Math/Science based, and the ASVAB is not being completely retarded.
Scored 96 percentile on the ASVAB with almost no sleep, no study, and no food because my lazy ass forgot to eat.
Didn't take the ACT but I likely would've done pretty bad considering my math is absolute ass.
Did well on the SAT with a 2030 because of my reading score, which I maxed out at 800.
The reading and writing sections of the SAT are relatively easy with the math being a bit more difficult.
Though overall it's easier to take the SAT alone and rely on that score if you're aiming for a more southern university.
things are getting bleak for poor white people nowadays desu. this just came out today
>The rising death rates for young white adults, ages 25 to 34, make them the first generation since the Vietnam War years to experience higher mortality rates than the previous generation.
He's not saying men shouldn't be manly, just that women are now free to do whatever they want while men are still held to structure traditional values and women expect us to do this without themselves holding on to or learning anything traditional. (ex. always hold the door open for them) They ride the clock carousel left and right, compete in the victim olympics and then have the audacity to shame us. If were losers, then that makes then worse thank losers. And at least many of us are good looking decent and hard-working `losers`
There is no conspiracy.
We are becoming decadent. That is all. After decades of wealth we no longer fear being thrown into poverty. We are losing our values and becoming shitty people because there are fewer consequences to our actions.
It isn't a case of men no longer needing women or women no longer needing men, it is people no longer needing people in general.
>it is not possible for anything to get worse
>anyone who says otherwise is a conservative because of my convoluted logic
You are thinking in absolutes like the sith. Some traditions were shitty but some were pretty good. In the past there was no such thing as a "square". It is only now that people can afford to be hedonistic and judge people by how entertaining they are, which subculture they are a part of or how much time they spend studying or partying.
We have taken a step backwards in this department.
This is absolutely and one-hundred percent the wrong attitude to have.
If you enter community college at a young and impressionable age, then the loser and mediocre attitudes of the faculty and student body will rub off on you, and they will dog you for the rest of your natural life. The mental damage to you will already have been done.
The kids that I knew in community college were just as adept as the ones I met at my four-year school. Granted, I was taking mostly calculus/physics courses alongside students grooming themselves to transfer to actual universities.
there's always been losers, but a loser could get a woman because women NEEDED a man to literally survive
women now get equal pay, equal job opportunities etc, so they don't require a man... a man is no longer a necessity, a man is a leisure activity.... mid-low tier men are utterly fucked
A hundred years ago, a male "loser" would end up being sent off to the trenches in WWI.
If you survived, you'd have gained a great deal of maturity and experience, and return to a job market that had been effectively cleared of competition by the sheer scale of the wartime slaughter. But you had a good chance of not surviving.
I don't know, does that sound better or worse than being a NEET?
>glad you guys admit that marriage=institutionalized prostitution.
Maybe you can call it "institutionalized prostitution" if you acknowlege the tacit corollary of de facto enslavement for the client. Actually, no you can't, because prostitution is already an institution by definition so the phrase "institutionalized prostitution" is both redundant and asinine.
Seriously, what the fuck is the deal with commies throwing around the participle "institutionalized" as if it means anything and fucking everything?
We gave up evolution.
Nowadays you have no power whatsoever - only money can give you power.
You can breed, even if you are ugly, stupid and a natural omega, if you're a millionaire.
Back in the ol' days if you could handle some kinda weapon (even if it was a club) you could have a woman, a place to live and food.
Now there's only money.
Money, money, money.
It replaced evolution.
It replaced your muscle, your intelligence, everything.
>Is the situation for male "losers" worse today in terms of access to resources and relationships than it was ~100 years ago?
100 years ago, you would probably be living in a poorhouse, and your best hopes of a meaningful relationship would have been an opium pipe.
The extent to which historical societies just completely chewed threw people is lost on you to even ask this.
And now you can't just kill, rape or fight.
Individuality and freedom are lost.
We exchanged evolution for illusionary gains.
You won't fight for resources, you become a slave.
You won't fight against anyone, because the police will catch you.
So basically you have no right to be / live like a true man.
Society cucked us.
Probably the first time western males at large have no reasons to live
not being able to be patriotic properly
not being able to live off manual labour properly
not being able to pursue any meaningful political activism or cause except weak sjw leftism , any other cause will be rendered useless
Truly even if its a time where quality of life should really be higher , the value of the lives of poor males is pretty much nothing
being a low class male in the 4chan steretype is tantamount to slow suicide.
I've kind of come to the same conclusion. I've recently had to re-evaluate my life as I've lost direction as I took stock of all my options. No matter how much I tell myself that Education or starting a business would satisfy me I can't help but feel there's this itch at the back of my brain for adventure that will never be fulfilled because I have too many responsibilities and expectations placed on me.
I Know War is unimaginable hell but I kind of want to fight in one.
I Know there are no lands left to explore yet I yearn for them anyway.
Anything has to be better than sitting at a desk for most of my life wishing I was somewhere else.
Low class,poor males pretty much NEED those kind of colectivist activities in order to justify their lonely existence where they have to compete over the most petty things with a billion other poor males in order to just get by
all of that with the sentence in OP's image looming over them no family,no jobs,no prospects
Specially in a society where social media constantly exposes them to what they SHOULD do and compares them to each other constantly
That's the thing, I do. When I'm not playing Vidya I'm world building for tabletop RPGs
Probably not surprising that my pride and joy is a fantasy realm where the world goes on forever in every cardinal direction..and the people and cultures that sort of world would create.
Just plug my brain into a computer already.
>Specially in a society where social media constantly exposes them to what they SHOULD do and compares them to each other constantly
This is a good point, if you are unsuccessful in modern terms you are constantly reminded of it by social and other media. When your options within society are basically limited to those approved forms of entertainment, relationships, labor, and activism that you are unable to engage in or understand, it's not hard to see why so many young men feel hopeless and alienated from their environment.
I feel this way absolutely. There are an innumerable number of social and economic forces that we have to follow and yet we call ourselves "free." Not all of these factors are bad I suppose, but our social morality is still petty as much as people like to say that we're becoming more "tolerant"
They say that 100 ago that distribution of men and women was fairly close to 1:1, and that after the Sexual Revolution, a much greater swathe of women began flocking to a smaller percentage of men.
How true do you think this is?
women want sex AND status.
most men still think that women want status far more than sex [they even say that women choose their boyfriend depending on how much he can provide for her children]
a few men understand that women want sex foremost, and status after sex, as a bonus.
This is mostly bait but I'll bite be a use I'm sick of seeing this. Let's talk in terms of business/ property rights. Say my vagina (which is my property as with any part of any one's body) is like my wallet with my money. You ask me to borrow 20 bucks one day and I let you. But just because I let you borrow 20 bucks 3 days ago,doesn't mean you can just reach into my wallet without asking/ with out my consent to take another 20. That's a complete violation of property rights( i.e. my personhood).
>School environments are such a fucking joke.
School environment quality tends to vary by department and level. I see this first had as a computer science major who almost doubled majored in english.
The CS administration is willing to do non-traditional things, like hire professional educators without PhDs straight from industry. These guys develop a "Chipotle" curriculum, and become full time teachers. Give them a semester to do what they want, and they produce high quality instruction, lots of hands on practice, personal attention and tutoring for girls and minorities, and a formula to repeat their results.
At the higher level, the research scientists with PhDs basically just goof off. One algorithms professor began screaming at a Chinese student and his Chinese friends for being unable to speak English. Despite the tenured professors, the department usually ends up with solid students who make solid money.
This was not true in the English department. The English department's curriculum has been watered down to the point of meaninglessness (pic related). The department's Plato and Shakespeare classes in my highly-ranked State University are gone. They haven't existed since a few students said they were racist in a teaching evaluation.
We don't even have classes about active voice, sentence-topic cohesion, etc. Could writing style be racist, too?
We now have classes about diversity and feminism at all levels of instruction. The lower level classes are taught by terrified graduate students, afraid of committing microaggressions. The higher level classes are taught by "scholars," and they lecture on whatever their research is on. The department forbids teachers from failing their students, and there is now a de facto B+ minimum. Yes, a B+ means you would have failed the class.
Needless to say, the English majors don't learn how to write. They learn how to complain poorly, and this is reflected in their salaries.
t. successful Engineer
Really seems to vary county to county, some are much better than others.
You'll get out what you put in at decent ones.
Also SATs are still handy for avoiding basic prerequisite classes like college algebra.
>men refuse to understand that women are better than them, so that men call women ''whores, sluts'' and men refuse to understand that there is nothing wrong with women being what they are.
>tfw barely had to take any "diversity" courses for my CS program
The best part about those liberal arts courses is that they're basically free GPA boosters. Granted, they didn't count towards major GPA but fuck it, I'm not listing that shit.
I don't know how liberal arts majors even end up ever getting on academic probation or kicked out. You literally have to try to to fail even upper division liberal arts courses.
>Boys and men have always been disposable and considered the less valuable sex.
This is not the whole picture.
Yes, the death of a man would be preferable to the death of a woman in any community, which may have made you view men as disposable and less valuable. But I could form such a flawed view on the opposite side as well: that women were practically disregarded as people and were only treated as baby factories. They were kept inside so that they could safely shit out more and more babies while taking care of the previous ones whilst men were doing most of the decision making, resource managment, and chased their passions and ambitions in the various fields of culture, science and power.
See but that's also a flawed viewpoint. The reality was even less black and white and both sexes were equally important, just in differeny ways. Literally yin and yang.
Isn't the general situation for the average poor young man in Muslim countries even worse though in terms of jobs, family, and prospects, despite the presence of "traditional values" regarding relationships?
You do have a right to your body, every one does. But shit wives and girlfriends use that and much other bullshit to with hold and not give the men they claim to love, sex. That's the problem. Those women are also most likely fucking other guys. They want benefits on their end of the relationship with giving anything to the guy (inb4 hurr durr we don't owe guys anything, it's a relationship and works both ways so yeah you do. Maybe not owe but It's a partnership and exchange, you want a good one you do your part). Those women are lazy, ungrateful and don't want to do anything/show any love for their men. Have their cake and eat it too. Well men being wise to low quality women`s shit and wanting to have nothing to do with them is the result
>rerr at the top of my posts
Yeah it's an actual post. For some retarded reason that was at the top and I had to even delete it from this one. I am on my phone though and the slightest slip of my finger on this damn thing has fucked shit up for me before so that would explain it.
I've never both liked and hated something I own this much before
>(which is my property
nice fantasy. properties are conventions resulting from personal choices.
if your body is your property, then you control it, but then why do choose to age and choose to let other use it ?
Go back to Tumblr where you belong!
Also, men built civilization, while women only destroyed civilizations like for example, Persia and the Roman Empire!
"If your house is your property, why do you choose to let anyone use it. Why do you choose to have the house fall apart such that you have to repair/ renew it.
You are substituting automatic, natural processes due to chemical changes as conscious control. Please just stop posting.
No you don't. Only in a culture when you are regarded as someone's property can that be valid. Women are not anyone's property by law now. Even when it wasn't acknowledged legally in the past, that would still be sexual abuse( though again not punished formally, abuse is still abuse.)
Fine, new law: if you refuse to fuck your wife or husband for over 6 months (and don't have some sort of proof), that is grounds for a divorce/them having a lover on the side legally. And they don't owe you shit.
I can still see this potentially being abused though. I guess, everyone will have to take care to record sex once in a while to keep themselves safe. But literally anything but men forcing themselves on their wives( or vice versa)
>Fine, new law: if you refuse to fuck your wife or husband for over 6 months (and don't have some sort of proof), that is grounds for a divorce/them having a lover on the side legally. And they don't owe you shit.
but then why do care so much about sex ? sex is just sex, and only mediocre people say that sex matters.
He got a fever and thought he was god. Doesn't count. Although personally i call bullshit on that. He was either tripping hard as fuck on hallucinogenics or felt he needed a backstory.
Yes, average men with no moral faults are ending up completely ostracized by society, something that would only ever happen to a female drug addict who is troublesome enough to be rejected from the women's shelter.
The interesting thing is, in a world where everyday hassle is considered "oppression" by some, the alienation of beta males who fail to meet society's standards is actively encouraged if not ignored.
What? What are you talking about?
Well, apparently it matters so much that if a wife doesn't want to put out for whatever reason, anon believes husbands should be able to just take it.
>this whole thread
Man children pls go. Don't ruin one of the few good boards on 4chan
Whatever you say, little buddy. I guess I'm just enough of a supreme enlightened gentlemen to understand.
Enjoy your virginity
SJW politic sthat criticize everyday hassle, "oppression" and sexism is only a distraction to hide the real problem from the real issue: the progressive decline of our socioeconomic system, the growing inequality and the decline of our culture.
It just happens that beta males who get left behind are one of the first visible victim groups of this real problem in the West. When it really gets worse in the coming decades who know who SJW and the other useful idiots will be manipulated to react.
This. Having your opinion stroked by a bunch of redpillers who are gonna explain to you that women are actually dominating the world and that's the reason they still live in their parent's basement has nothing to do with history.
In many cultures of the past men had their marriage partners selected by their parents, so there was no need for man to play "the game", knowing that he will get some pussy anyway, unless he was a beggar cuck or something like that. Even the sons of farmers had their wives picked for them.
>The department's Plato and Shakespeare classes in my highly-ranked State University are gone. They haven't existed since a few students said they were racist in a teaching evaluation.
I disagree. The areas to "win in" have largely decreased, or gone away completely, while the state of "losing" is almost constant in today's society, especially for males.
You can be "losing" in a multitude of ways at the same time, financially, career-wise, romantically, simply by not enjoying your life, etc.
young white men worked the worst conditions ever in tin mines, shipyards and factories during the Victorian period so blacks could sit on their arses getting welfare. Liberals actually suggest the 'privilege' is osmething whites hsould be ashamed of and not proud of when our ancestors died in squalor in the hopes we might one day live better lives in comfort whilst upholding moral principles.